Weak cavalry?

**Watchman** · 10-26-2006, 07:43

Depends entirely on what part of Europe and which time period you're talking about. Much of Italy, particularly the northern part, was heavily urbanized and the local knights really just provided a mobile striking arm to complement the solid shieldwalls of the communal infantry; ditto for the Low Countries; in the Iberian peninsula lighter cavalry played a greater part due to the geography and the hit-and-run characteristic of many conflicts fought, and the difficult terrain probably kept infantry comparatively valuable too; Fennoscandia was absolutely rotten with dense forests and never good "cavalry country" anyway, as well as so poor proper feudal chivalry were comparatively few in number for economic reasons. France and England, as well as some areas of Central Europe, were relatively open country and prosperous enough to support extensive feudal structures, and it was really there the knights dominated. Germany (as a geographical region) I know less about, but would suspect the trend varied considerably by the specific circumstances and terrain of a given area.

Obviously once you get to the wide open steppes of Eastern Europe and southern Russia, the natural domain of the horse, cavalry becomes rather overwhelmingly dominant for the obvious reason its mobility can be exploited to the fullest; access to traditions of mounted archery and composite bows no doubt further helped in this.

**Orda Khan** · 10-26-2006, 10:46

Using Mongol cavalry as an example of the superiority of mounted troops is quite a good argument, they were very successful, even in Europe (Poland, Hungary, Transylvania, Bulgaria) However, in the Civil War between Qubilai and Ariq Bukha, the limitless inclusion of infantry available to Qubilai was one deciding factor in his eventual victory

........Orda

**Redtemplar** · 10-26-2006, 13:16

Exactly (I didn't write everything about tactics of Mongols because it is not theme in this discussion - sorry for history fans :) - fact is that Mongols used cavalry). But true is that waves of horses one after another is very hard to defend against.

If charge was unsuccessful they turned around and attack another time. Infantry had weak mobility and low defense values against cavalry (exception are pikes and some weapons). Imagine to stand in one place with your battle colleagues (about 500, armored with swords and round shields, flat terrain) against 100 medium heavy cavalry units. You couldn't have a chance to survive this.

Battle horses were trained to kill and were not afraid of enemies. Even if they had number superiority. When you fight in battle you want to survive, the same does the enemy. I really doubt that you could stop cavalry with ordinary infantry. When order to charge was executed there was nothing to stop this (some of you say that horses were afraid of dying- it very funny but the soldiers were too and none of them was stopping suddenly in battle).

I repeat again battle horses were trained to fight and had huge courage - when you talk that these horses could run away - it is nonsense (much sooner would run away enemies infantry).

IMHO medieval times are ages of cavalry supremacy.

**Bob the Insane** · 10-26-2006, 13:55

Well the point is not so much about the agressiveness of the horses or them running away, as it is about them being convinced they should run head long into an apparantly solid object... This is more an issue of inteligence rather than aggression, even a trained and aggressive animal will not run headlong into a solid object...

Now if you break up the infantry formation so that they do not look so solid but has gaps or better still looks like individuals I will grant you the horse will charge into those gaps and knock down and trample those individuals...

**Furious Mental** · 10-26-2006, 14:34

"France and England, as well as some areas of Central Europe, were relatively open country and prosperous enough to support extensive feudal structures, and it was really there the knights dominated."

Actually the English had a predilection to fighting on foot which they passed on to the Norman aristocracy after their conquest. Plentiful infantry were an objective necessity of the siege warfare which dominated almost every campaign in England and Normandy and most field armies were probably comprised of two thirds infantry as William the Conqueror's is thought to have been (and in many pitched battles even the cavalry component was dismounted for tactical advantage). Also, the "extensive feudal structures" you refer to were in fact the least important of the English system of military obligations. Far more important were
- The knights of military households whose service was chiefly stipendiary
- Other knights and infantry whose service was entirely stipendiary
- The infantry levy of English land owners (i.e. the fyrd)
Leaf through contemporary sources from the eleventh to thirteenth centuries and you can find about a zillion references to armies being raised by these means. On the other hand (and I'm not joking here) there are only three references to a feudal host being summoned. And records of government show pretty clearly that kings and barons had a preference for having their vassals commute feudal obligations for a money payment which could be used to hire mercenaries. In fact the process of subinfeudation (division of knights' fees amongst several sub-tenant) meant that in practice there were frequently no feudal knights to summon.

**Aracnid** · 10-26-2006, 16:10

Originally Posted by Redtemplar

Exactly (I didn't write everything about tactics of Mongols because it is not theme in this discussion - sorry for history fans :) - fact is that Mongols used cavalry). But true is that waves of horses one after another is very hard to defend against.

If charge was unsuccessful they turned around and attack another time. Infantry had weak mobility and low defense values against cavalry (exception are pikes and some weapons). Imagine to stand in one place with your battle colleagues (about 500, armored with swords and round shields, flat terrain) against 100 medium heavy cavalry units. You couldn't have a chance to survive this.

Battle horses were trained to kill and were not afraid of enemies. Even if they had number superiority. When you fight in battle you want to survive, the same does the enemy. I really doubt that you could stop cavalry with ordinary infantry. When order to charge was executed there was nothing to stop this (some of you say that horses were afraid of dying- it very funny but the soldiers were too and none of them was stopping suddenly in battle).

I repeat again battle horses were trained to fight and had huge courage - when you talk that these horses could run away - it is nonsense (much sooner would run away enemies infantry).

IMHO medieval times are ages of cavalry supremacy.

See my above post for my counter reply.

or

**LadyAnn** · 10-26-2006, 17:12

Originally Posted by Redtemplar

IMHO medieval times are ages of cavalry supremacy.

Am not so quick to come to this conclusion at all. The Middle Ages are so diverse and evolutionary in military doctrines that it is very hard to just say that.

When someone says "Heavy Cavalry should win all", we could cite numerous examples where they fell the task. Not only in France, but also in Iberian Penninsula. One could point out that at certain point in the 14th century, the knights started to fight on foot, prefered to dismount before battle. Yet, if someone said "Cavalry should be weak" one could point out the success of Polish cavalry, of Mongol light cavalry, of Spanish cavalry, of Cavalry in Crusade Era (on both sides).

Anniep

**Orda Khan** · 10-26-2006, 19:16

Mongol discipline as much as their cavalry won them their victories. Ask any military historian for an opinion and it will be that generally it was the 'grunts' who did the hard work

....Orda

**Eaglefirst** · 10-26-2006, 20:25

I'm no medieval war period expert but kngihts charging frontally shoul;d work on weak troops but not on any sort of experienced infantry. I would imagine If I was a peasent and a knight ran at me I'd run away, once I run I'm toast, the formation is gone and we get ridden down but if we hold still the horses will either refuese to charge trhough the spears and shields or charge and get bogged down and cut to pieces. Also someone more knowledgable can correct me but I think knights did not charge at full gallop which would make the momentum less of a factor. Overall the cavalry in MT2W seems good not the overpowerd garbage in RTW.

**Redtemplar** · 10-26-2006, 20:28

Yes LadyAnn it depends on many parameters. But I really doubt in so called "solid wall from humans" - i never have seen that surviving a battle in middle Europe. Polish cavalry had an experience in destroying even such formations (only carts? and special walls from wood - shield haha - for infantry could protect them - but still this wasn't good protection :)). They simply made charges one after another (and used some interesting tactics -

). The infantry was weakened enough to make final charge and game over :).

I think it is experience different in every nations (

) but I am writing this topics from my point of view (and I am not saying cavalry can destroy everything, but in good hands can destroy almost everything :).

Peace and love - remember war is cruel - let it be only in games.

**Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe** · 10-26-2006, 21:12

IF cavalry can destroy almost anything, do you think this game is going to be of any interest at all?

Just buy cavalry and win... That's going to be very poor gameplay...

Louis,